Government Bureauracies

In Federalist 51, James Madison stated “Justice is the end [i.e., goal or purpose] of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.” As we see the abuse of power wielded by the FBI, the Department of Justice, and perhaps others in the Obama administration over the fourth amendment rights of those involved in the Trump presidential campaign, we must demand that justice against those who mishandled their public trust be brought to justice, else, as Madison warns, liberty for all of us will be lost.

However, in trying to bring justice back to being the foundation of our government and our society, we must look deeper into how it was that justice came to be lost. Baron Charles de Montesquieu began the opening of Part I, Book 8 in his monumental work, The Spirit of the Laws (published 1748), with these words: “The corruption of each government almost always begins with that of its principles.”

This then leads us to ask what principles within our government have been corrupted that led to its current state of corruption? To answer this question we must return to the principle that motivated our founders to take that step for freedom and independence, namely that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” The import of this phrase is that all men are therefore to be treated equally, which is the essence of the concept of justice.

How then is justice for all to be achieved (as we say in the closing of our pledge of allegiance)? This question was answered by Frederic Bastiat in his treatise The Law in 1850. He posits the question repeatedly “What is the law?”, to which he consistently gave a one word answer: “justice.” Putting this all together we have the principle that justice can exist only when all men are treated as they were created, namely, equal under the law. When those of a supposed “higher class” are given a pass for violations of law that others would suffer severe punishment, then the principle of justice has died and along with it the principle of a representative government.

Returning to Montesquieu, he went on to give this analysis of how to reverse this situation when it occurs within a republic: “When a republic has been corrupted, none of the ills that arise can be remedied except by removing the corruption and recalling the principles; every other correction is either useless or a new ill” (Part I, Book 8, chapter 12).

How then are we to remove this corruption and return to our principle of justice? To answer this question we must look at who has brought about this corruption. In chapter 5 Montesquieu gave the answer: “Aristocracy is corrupted when the power of the nobles becomes arbitrary; there can no longer be virtue either in those who govern or in those who are governed.” Indeed, do not most of those in Congress, and especially in the higher levels of bureaucratic power, act aristocratically as though they are nobility? This is what happens when those who are given the reins of power refuse to relent them to others and remain in office year after year. Montesquieu continued, “Extreme corruption occurs when nobility becomes hereditary; the nobles can scarcely remain moderate.” We claim that we do not have nobles and hereditary claims to the right of power and position, but when incumbency is the rule rather than the exception, and those serving in departments of the government make a career of it, then most certainly we do have a class of “nobility” that has become for all intents and purposes “hereditary”, and as a result, extreme corruption sets in. Once this occurs Montesquieu states that “Corruption will increase among those who corrupt, and it will increase among those who are already corrupted.”

If ever there was a time, then, to “drain the swamp” that has become our national government, it is now. We as voters can do our part by voting our “nobles” and “aristocrats” out of their positions of power and encouraging their replacements to alter the laws so that those in these myriads of unconstitutional bureaucracies can be removed as well and their power over us be diminished. The ruins of our republic can be rebuilt and rise like a phoenix out of the ashes, but the time is getting very, very short.

As I commented last week (The Preamble VII – “provice for the general welfare” (Part I)), the phrase “provide for the general welfare” has wrecked more havoc upon our country and put more of our liberties and freedom in jeopardy than perhaps any other clause in the Constitution (other than perhaps the “necessary and proper” clause). As I shared then, those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution back in 1787-1788 argued that this clause would be ripe for abuse by future politicians to put in place anything and everything they deemed to be good for “the general welfare,” and that is exactly what has happened.

So how do we convince members of Congress today that they are way out of their constitutional bounds with much, if not indeed most, of what they have done in inserting the government into our lives? The answer does not come from some lowly constitutional blogger such as myself – us “mere citizens” have no standing in the eyes of these scoffers at constitutional restraints. No, I have a better witness to rebut them – James Madison, commonly referred to as “the father of the Constitution.”

As one of the three authors of The Federalist Papers, he countered the arguments of the Anti-Federalists regarding their alarms over this phrase in essay number 41. In addressing the use of this phrase in the opening of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which contains the “enumerated powers” of Congress, he clearly defined the role of the phrase:

“But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.”

In other words, Madison is stating that the particular, itemized powers that follow in Section 8 of Article I are meant to define, clarify and limit the extent of the general phrase “to provide for the general welfare.” So when the question is posited as to what and how is the general welfare to be provided for via the general government, the answer is to read the list of limited powers that follow that were granted to the Congress. Anything therefore outside of that list that Congress involves itself in is instead of providing for the general welfare is destroying the general welfare. When excessive debt is accumulated to fund the myriad programs that are outside the purview of Congress’ authority, when programs rob individuals of their sense of personal responsibility and steal the personal property (of any kind) of citizens, that is not promoting the general welfare of the country but rather destroying that which made the early Americans unique, special and prosperous at its founding.

So then, just as we learned in our high school English classes in regards to writing a composition, you begin with a thematic statement that is broad and general that paints the full picture of what the paper is to be about, and then the rest of the following paragraphs develop, define and specify what is intended by that thematic statement. Such then is the meaning, and proper use and application of the phrase “provide for the general welfare.” Or as James Madison might say – “General Welfare does not mean ‘Anything you want!’”

Perhaps no more abused clause in all of the Constitution is this one regarding the “general welfare.” It has been the excuse for the national government to get involved in forcing citizens to save for retirement via the social security tax, to health care, to you name it. The clause is repeated in the opening of Article I, Section 8, which is important as I shall point out in Part II on this topic. Interestingly, when the southern states seceded and formed the Confederate States of America, their constitution mirrored the US Constitution in many ways, but glaringly omitted any reference to providing for the “general welfare.”

To ascertain the meaning of this clause I will spend this and the next (or possibly two) essay(s) taking a look at how the founders viewed this clause and how they explained it’s meaning. As I have pointed out in the beginning of this series on the Preamble, merely including this clause in it does not give any authority to Congress to do as they please in matters they determine to be for the “general welfare” as a preamble in not part of the Constitution as far as granting authority, but merely an introduction as to the purpose for those things enumerated within the Constitution.

This general welfare clause and the fear of its potential for abuse was one of the reasons those known as the “Anti-Federalists” opposed the ratification of the Constitution. The first witness I set before you is the author known by the pseudonym “Centinel”, who wrote the following on October 5, 1787:

“The Congress may construe every purpose for which the state legislatures now lay taxes, to be for the general welfare, and thereby seize upon every object of revenue.”

Consider our situation today – how much of our income does Congress “seize upon” in taxes to provide for all of the programs it deems to be for the “general welfare” yet not authorized in the Constitution? Does not Centinel’s warning ring true?

The next witness to warn about this phrase was the outstanding Anti-Federalist known by the pseudonym “Brutus.” He had much to say about the potential for abuse of all three branches of government, and he has pretty much proved to be a prophet with unerring accuracy. Herewith is some of what he had to say about this clause in his essay number VI, written on December 27, 1787:

“It will then be matter of opinion, what tends to the general welfare; and the Congress will be the only judges in the matter. To provide for the general welfare, is an abstract proposition, which mankind differ in the explanation of, as much as they do on any political or moral proposition that can be proposed; the most opposite measures may be pursued by different parties, and both may profess, that they have in view the general welfare; and both sides may be honest in their professions, or both may have sinister views…

It is as absurd to say, that the power of Congress is limited by these general expressions, “to provide for the common safety, and general welfare,” as it would be to say, that it would be limited, had the constitution said they should have power to lay taxes, etc. at will and pleasure. Were this authority given, it might be said, that under it the legislature could not do injustice, or pursue any measures, but such as were calculated to promote the public good, and happiness. For every man, rulers as well as others, are bound by the immutable laws of God and reason, always to will what is right. It is certainly right and fit, that the governors of every people should provide for the common defence and general welfare; every government, therefore, in the world, even the greatest despot, is limited in the exercise of his power. But however just this reasoning may be, it would be found, in practice, a most pitiful restriction. The government would always say, their measures were designed and calculated to promote the public good; and there being no judge between them and the people, the rulers themselves must, and would always, judge for themselves.”

It is very apparent, is it not, that the fears of these two founders regarding the abuse of this clause by those who were to come after them to justify the expansion of the power of government and the diminishment of individual liberties has indeed come to fruition? So, what was the response by those who argued in favor of the adoption of the Constitution? We will examine James Madison’ response in the next essay.

This past Sunday, September 17, was the 230th anniversary of the conclusion of the Philadelphia convention of 1787. Upon the conclusion of the convention, as he was leaving “Independence Hall”, the aged Benjamin Franklin was asked, “Well Doctor Franklin, what have you got for us?”, to which he replied, “A republic madam, if you can keep it.” Actually, what he and the other delegates to the convention had given to their fellow Americans and us, their descendants, was a constitutional republic.

Yet, this week, we must ask, “After 230 years, are we still a constitutional republic? Is the Constitution still relevant in our day and time?” To these two questions I would answer with a resounding “No”! Consider the following (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy):

If the party in power can use secret courts to get an order to wiretap and spy on their opponents with no repercussions, you might not live in a constitutional republic.

If government agencies can plant applications on the computers of reporters who are reporting on governmental malfeasance and tap their phone conversations (e.g., James Rosen and Sharyl Attkinsson), thus violating both the first and fourth amendments, you might not live in a constitutional republic.

If the government records the conversations and all electronic communications of every citizen in massive meta-data fusion centers, again violating the fourth amendment, you might not live in a constitutional republic.

If elected officials constantly create unconstitutional agencies and empower them to act as legislator, executor and judge over your property, business and personal affairs, you might not live in a constitutional republic.

If elected officials listen more to those who fill their campaign coffers instead of their constituents, you might not live in a constitutional republic.

If certain officials in high positions of power use their position to influence policies and negotiations with foreign powers to grossly enhance their financial well-being at the expense of the liberties and security of the rest of the country (e.g., Hilary Clinton), with no fear of prosecution, you might not live in a constitutional republic.

If elected officials and even members of the Supreme Court have no inkling as to the tenets of the Constitution, even mocking it (e.g., Nancy Pelosi’s response regarding the unconstitutionality of “Obamacare”), you might not live in a constitutional Republic.

If the government routinely eschews the limitations imposed upon its authority by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, you might not live in a constitutional republic.

I could go on and on with these, but I think it’s a sufficient number that you get the picture. Our elected (and unelected) government officials pay lip service to the Constitution they take an oath to uphold and defend, but they seldom live up to that oath. So, is our Constitution relevant today as to the operation of our national government? I think, sadly, the answer is rather obvious.

Being a manager in Human Resources over the years, I’ve had many occasions to create job descriptions. I was prompted to think about this the other day when I heard Representative Maxine Waters proclaim that her only reason in running for re-election in 2018 was to continue to pursue the impeachment of President Trump. So, with my professional background, allow me, Representative Waters, to tell you what you and your colleagues’ job description is per the Constitution.

Most would probably say that the job of our representatives in Congress is to pass laws. After all, the Constitution plainly states that they comprise half of the national legislature, and legislating involves writing laws. True, that is the meaning of the term “legislate”, and that is the part of the government to which the Constitution assigns them; but I’d rather they spend time unwriting laws, abolishing regulations and de-authorizing the myriad of departments and agencies they’ve created over the years that have no foundation within the Constitution! The preacher in the Biblical book of Ecclesiastes concluded by stating a truth “amened” by every student, namely that “Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.” If he were to write that today in view of our Congress he could well have said “Of making laws there is no end, and much regulation wearies the citizenry.”

Though some laws are necessary to the preservation of a civil society and the liberties of its citizens, I would submit that such is not the primary duty in a congressional representative’s job description. Instead I would point to the last phrase in the first amendment to the Constitution: “…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Why would the founders have felt the need to add this to the Constitution? We need look no further than to our Declaration of Independence, for that is exactly the purpose for which it was written and submitted to the British Crown, but to no avail. The founders had languished under the tyranny of a ruler who brushed aside their petitions for redress, so they wanted to make certain that in the new government they were crafting there would be a mechanism to preserve that ability and right of the people. So just what is that conduit that is available to us whenever we feel the government has overstepped its authority and is threatening our liberties to seek redress if it is not through our representatives? Is that not the very meaning of the term “represent”? Just who are they representing? Us, their constituents. To whom are they representing us? Is it not the national government?

No, no Maxine, your purpose in running for the office of Representative is not to “Impeach 45” (unless he has committed offenses that threaten our liberties, which he has not), but to be the mouthpiece for your fellow citizens when they feel they have been harmed by the government. Lord knows you have a mouth – you just need to use it for the purpose for which your office intends.

“No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

Today, most individuals would consider this a “dead’ amendment, worthless, and in need of expunging from its place within the Bill of Rights. Many probably (out of ignorance of the time in which it was written) find it rather amusing that such a “trifling” matter was inserted into the Constitution. Let us then re-examine this amendment and see just how relevant it still is today.

Granted, we have no fear of soldiers being quartered in our houses, especially against our will, but that was not the case in colonial America. British rulers could and did order Americans (British subjects at the time) to house the King’s soldiers and provide them with meals, even if it meant they were turned out of their beds and went without food! Note that this was not an occupying foreign power forcing this upon the populace (such as the Germans forcing similar lodgings upon say French citizens in WWII), but rather a people’s own government perpetrating this action. So colossal was this imposition that the framers were determined to make certain that their new government would have severe limitations placed upon it in this regard.

Fine, you may say, but what does this have to do with us today? To begin with, the actual prohibition, whether we feel it so remote as to be impossible, is still in place. Yet if you “pull back the curtain” and look at the underlying principle, you can see just how important it is. In a number of essays, I have referred back to the principle of individual liberty, as enunciated by the 16th century political philosopher John Locke, that it is founded upon the security of individual property rights. Locke states that whatever we gain by the work of our hands belongs to no one else but us, and no one – including government – has the right to remove it from our hands without our consent. By forcing Americans to house these soldiers the British government was in effect plundering the private property of its own subjects – something Locke stated it had no moral authority to do.

Fast forward to today and consider my comments in the closing paragraph of my essay from last week (Income Taxes and Bridal Dresses). The EPA tells us what we can/cannot do with our property. Fail to pay your property taxes and see just how long you remain in your house before the government seizes it and evicts you. Fail to pay your income taxes – or at least what the IRS claims you owe – and you may be raided and your assets seized and sold out from under you at pennies on the dollar. Try to open up a business without first gaining a business permit from the government, or practice a profession you spent years acquiring the necessary knowledge needed, such as in medicine. All of these things our founders would be aghast at were they to come back to view their creation today.

Many know about the fourth amendment’s protection of our personal matters, but it is the third amendment which sets up this more expansive amendment following it, which constraints are also routinely shredded by our government.

Today, those less knowledgeable about the differences between rights and privileges go about chanting they have a “right” to this that or the other and yet miss the boat on the principle of what should be the shield for preserving our natural, inalienable rights. It is past time we revisit and elevate the third amendment to its rightful place of respect among the other nine amendments in our Bill of Rights and insist that Washington respect the limits it and the others place upon their power.

It has just now come to light that a few months ago, in Garland, Texas, 20 armed IRS agents swooped down upon a mom-and-pop bridal store owned by two elderly immigrants from Thailand and seized their entire inventory and equipment for alleged unpaid back income taxes. The designer dresses, valued at around $615,000 were sold for pennies on the dollar along with other assets such as sewing machines, a flat screen television, game console as well as the hat of Vietnam Veteran customer who had left it there to have some patches sewn on. The total net take for the IRS: around $17,000! As a result, this elderly couple is left destitute and out of business after 34 years of operation.

The authority upon which the IRS relied in this robbery is 26 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 301.6335-1, “Sale of Seized Property.” Note that this is not a law passed by the national legislature (Congress), but rather is part of the 80,000+ pages of “laws” promulgated by an unelected bureaucracy (IRS) which has both written “laws” (i.e., regulations) – a legislative act, interpreted how to apply these “laws” – a judicial act, and enforced these “laws” – an executive act. Clearly no separation of powers as designed by our founders in the Constitution.

Citizens of the United States are guaranteed the right to protection against such acts by our government: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (4th Amendment, US Constitution).

According to news reports, the IRS did obtain court authorization upon their presentation of an affidavit, but the broader question is “Was this ‘reasonable’?” If you read the complete set of guidelines of the CFR I referenced above, it appears the IRS violated its own protocols. Not only this, but in seizing some of the non-clothing items they seized items outside the court’s authorization, especially the hat that belonged to someone not involved in the tax dispute. If you or I do that, it’s called “theft of personal property” and we go to jail!

What is more outrageous is the speed with which this was carried out. According to the CFR there is supposed to be at least a ten-day period between serving notice of the pending sale and the commencement of the sale; but if the IRS believes that the items to be seized are “in jeopardy” of losing their value, the items can be sold immediately without any further due process. Designer bridal dresses “in jeopardy” of losing their value?? Seriously – weddings are going to cease and the dresses be of no worth unless disposed of immediately?

Clearly this action by the IRS costs us taxpayers much more than what they recovered by the sale of these assets. Furthermore, the tax returns for the years in question indicate that the couple had a carryover of a net operating loss, and thus no taxes would have been owed. Also, a memo written by an IRS supervisor obtained via the Freedom of Information Act issued a directive to agents to “shut down this failing business.” If freedom is to be preserved, this insidious income tax and the agency it gave birth to must go.

We are no longer free my fellow Americans. Unelected bureaucrats in these unconstitutional agencies (admittedly the IRS was created to enforce the 13th amendment) tell us what we can do with our property (EPA), what products we can produce (Dept. of Commerce), how much people must be paid by employers (DOL), how we are to obtain health care and related insurances (HHS), and how much disposable money from our earnings we’re allowed to keep (IRS). The government, via these bureaucracies, control our property, our businesses, our health and our incomes, and our representatives in Congress do nothing to stop them. You tell me – if the government controls these critical aspects of our lives (and there’s more), then how is it we can consider ourselves to be “free”?

In my last two essays (Badges? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Badges!” and The Real Problem with President Trump’s Tax Return) I touched on the subject of how the general government in Washington, DC is encroaching upon our freedom and chipping away at our liberties. The underlying problem that is precipitating this encroachment is a government that has expanded outside it’s intended, constitutionally-limited role. Because of this there has arisen a movement to amend our Constitution via a co-called “Convention of States.”

Such a convention has been grossly misrepresented by those who are promoting it, but to address those misrepresentations would take numerous, lengthy essays and it is not the point of this series of essays. What I wish to point out in this essay and the two to follow are three amendment changes that should be made a priority that would help to restore our freedom that is being destroyed and returning us to a true federal, republican form of government.

The first of these would be a repeal of the 16th amendment. This amendment was pushed through by the progressives in both political parties (Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats along with Teddy Roosevelt and the northeastern Republicans) in the turn of the last century. As I’ve pointed out previously, this amendment granted the power to the government to tax every form of our earnings at any level they deem appropriate (during the 1950s’ the marginal tax rate exceeded 90%!). Such is a direct assault upon the concept of individual liberty as personal property rights, which includes our incomes, is the foundation of that liberty. If those wishing to amend our Constitution were serious about it, this would be their number one concern.

Not only does this amendment give the government plenary power over our earnings, our tax forms that are required for reporting our income to the taxing authorities capture even more information about us that the government has no business having any knowledge of. We are required to tell them how many dependents we have, what type, if any, retirement plans we have and if we received any benefits from them, how much we spent on health costs (which gives a window into our health status), what type of business we own (if we are self-employed), how much we donate to charities, what our occupation is, and on and on and on. I challenge anyone to give me the article, section and clause in our Constitution that grants the government the right to have any of this information, for such authority is non-existent.

Yes, our Constitution is not perfect – Ben Franklin said as much on the last day of the 1787 convention in Philadelphia when the newly minted Constitution was signed by the delegates. However, the Constitution has since been “toyed” with by individuals who did not rise to the level of foresight and wisdom of those who first framed it, and the 16th amendment is a prime example that needs to be repealed.

So now the whole world knows. In 2005 the Trumps paid $38 million in income taxes to the general government, or 25% of their taxable income. As we follow this “bombshell” dud in the news, pundits are assailing it on multiple fronts, but none are touching on the real problem with this incident.

Most of what I’ve heard is how whoever leaked this return committed a felony in that tax returns are, by law, to be kept private unless the individual chooses to voluntarily make them known. This incident is used as yet another example of how there are those on the left are trying to undermine the new president and his administration. All of that is true, but that is not the real problem.

Others have drawn comparisons of how much the Trumps paid in taxes compared to the percentages paid by others, especially those on the left to have attacked the president over how much he paid in taxes or whether or not he even paid any taxes. It has been rightly pointed out that the president paid an outrageous portion of his income in taxes – twenty-five cents out of every taxable dollar he earned. This illustrates how counter-productive any income tax system is, namely it punishes success and productivity. From an economic standpoint and the principle of individual freedom as enunciated by the British political philosopher John Locke in the 17th century, this is a problem, but again, it is not the real problem.

Some commentators have rightly stated that this leak and it’s intended purpose of discrediting the president is illustrative of how dangerous it is for the government to have such information on us and how someone who has something against us can then use that information in an attempt to destroy our lives. This is getting close to the real problem with the president’s tax return, but it is not the real problem.

The real problem with the president’s tax return is that the government has possession of that information to begin with. Think about it. Last week I wrote about how the government is violating our fourth amendment rights (Badges? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Badges!) by collecting all of our communication data, but on our income tax returns they capture how much money we earn, perhaps what we spend it on, the status of our health (depending upon our medical deductions), our business dealings and investments, and much more, and they have been doing so since 1913 when the 16th amendment was added to our Constitution.

This real problem with President Trump’s tax return is the same as with yours and mine – the government’s access to all sorts of our private information. Underlying this real problem is that which gives the government this access, namely the 16th amendment. If those pushing to amend our Constitution were really serious about restoring individual freedom and our liberties, repealing the 16th amendment would be one of their top three priorities (but more on that next week).

Remember that line from the classic movie “Blazing Saddles”? Well that could now easily be the new motto of the United States, replacing the old and tired E Pluribus Unum. With the latest uproar in the war between President Trump and the leftists over whether or not his campaign and his administration was secretly wire tapped, many who were asleep for the past few decades are learning (or should be) that our government has to power to know everything about each and every one of us, whether warranted or not.

In case you were not aware, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 created a secret court system that was designed to issue warrants allowing government agencies to use electronic surveillance on foreign powers and those suspected of spying for them within the United States. In December 1981 President Reagan signed Executive Order 12333 that was intended to expand the flexibility of US intelligence agencies in gathering their data and sharing it with other agencies. It has since been amended and expanded by subsequent executive orders signed by President George W. Bush. This law and the courts it established, along with these executive orders are now the backbone upon which the National Security Agency today collects data on all citizens with or without warrants. Just before he left office, President Obama authorized the NSA to open up its treasure trove of data on us to a host of government agencies.

The NSA has its own search engine that covers almost one trillion private phone and internet records of millions and millions of US citizens. The collection and housing of this “metadata” is allegedly to catch those who would do us harm. Yet our Constitution is quite clear:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Let’s analyze this amendment against the backdrop of what I’ve shared above.

We have the right to be “secure”, that is protected and kept safe from.

We are to be secure in regards to:

Our persons, which would mean our bodies and any information pertaining to us.

Our houses, hence the notion of our homes being our “castle”.

Our papers, meaning anything we might write or communicate in any form or fashion, including electronic communications.

Our effects, which would include any kind of possessions we have.

We are to be secure against searches and seizures of these items that are deemed to be “unreasonable.” What is unreasonable is defined by what follows.

In order for the government to search, and if found, seize any of the items described as being protected, a warrant must be obtained from a judge. Those requesting the warrant must present evidence for the probable cause of a violation of law. Furthermore, they must swear by an oath that the evidence is indeed truthful and straight forward. Therefore, if such evidence is not sufficient to prove probable cause, then any search and/or seizure is to be deemed “unreasonable.”

Not only this, but the warrant must be specific – no blanket, open-ended, generalized warrant is permitted. The places, individuals and things that have been sworn to be reasonably suspected to be a violation of the law must be named; without this specificity, any search and/or seizure is again “unreasonable.” Yet our government today is gathering all of our communication data and transactions either with a broad generalized warrant, or no warrant at all.

When it comes to the law, governments are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that justice is served, which can only be done when the law protects us from lawbreakers, enemies, and yes, even our own government. Our government may say “Warrants? We don’t need no stinkin’ warrants”, but our Constitution that created it says differently.